D&D General Harshest House Rule (in use)?

[Paul Farquhar]

My experience of rolling ability scores was that all characters had 18 in everything because they just kept on rolling until they did. So, I don't use rolled ability scores, even though most of my current players are unlikely to cheat.

 

[cbwjm]

And weird, people typically know things about the world they live in.

One the small annoyances that I have with some games is that, you're exactly right, people do typically know things about the world they live in. The amount of DMs who think that low-level adventurers wouldn't know about things like trolls hating/being vulnerable to fire or silver being anathema to werewolves. Some of these things are based on folklore in our own world where supernatural things don't exist, I feel like a lot of these things would be known by people living in a world where they do. This is why when I run games, I don't worry about players knowing that fire will hurt trolls or silver will is needed against lycanthropes, it's common knowledge, they'll know it, no rolls needed.

 

[Stormonu]

Probably the way that I enforce human-centrism in high fantasy and space opera campaigns.

Ugh, I could not abide by that level of strictness. While a great many of my NPCs are human as a player I loathe playing human PCs.

I can only remember using 3d6 in order the first year or two I started D&D, with the Holmes/BX rules. Once I cracked open the DMG and saw the rolling method of 4d6, I've used that ever since.

Ever since 3E though, I find I like to challenge myself/the game to see how well an "unexceptional" character plays (for me, that's any character who has no ability score above 15, even after racial modifiers). It's been interesting in running a (strangely) human monk and dwarf rogue whose highest score was 13. They both did surprisingly well, and the dwarf character is still alive at level 7 (the human died to a bad death saving roll of 1 before the cleric could get to him - just bad luck). It can be frustrating sometimes to play that kind of character, but it has helped me develop a sentiment away from being infactuated with uber characters and power play and being more casual in my approach to D&D.

 

[ezo]

One the small annoyances that I have with some games is that, you're exactly right, people do typically know things about the world they live in. The amount of DMs who think that low-level adventurers wouldn't know about things like trolls hating/being vulnerable to fire or silver being anathema to werewolves. Some of these things are based on folklore in our own world where supernatural things don't exist, I feel like a lot of these things would be known by people living in a world where they do. This is why when I run games, I don't worry about players knowing that fire will hurt trolls or silver will is needed against lycanthropes, it's common knowledge, they'll know it, no rolls needed.

The thing with stuff like this though is often people think they know something, only to find out common myth and information is actually WRONG. Look at all the misinformation and half-truths we have IRL!

IME it is best to go with a simple INT check for the PC to see if they happen to know the correct information about something. For the examples you have above, it wouldn't necessarily be a high DC, 10 would probably do it.

 

[bloodtide]

And weird, people typically know things about the world they live in.

Typically....but not always. A great many people do not know a great amount of stuff.

how so do you enforce weak players portraying really strong characters? Do they roll to smash in a door, or do you let them beat on a door in your house?

Well, using strength in an RPG is an action covers by the rules. So the players can just use the rules.

Then why do people play magic users or fantasy races or in a fantasy world? Or do you only allow humans and nonmagical races, equipment, or abilities?

For fun.

One the small annoyances that I have with some games is that, you're exactly right, people do typically know things about the world they live in. The amount of DMs who think that low-level adventurers wouldn't know about things like trolls hating/being vulnerable to fire or silver being anathema to werewolves. Some of these things are based on folklore in our own world where supernatural things don't exist, I feel like a lot of these things would be known by people living in a world where they do. This is why when I run games, I don't worry about players knowing that fire will hurt trolls or silver will is needed against lycanthropes, it's common knowledge, they'll know it, no rolls needed.

I'm fine with the character knowing all the lore the players do. So if a player knows a lot of game lore and setting lore, and has a good memory and/or notes, they have a very knowledgeable character in one of my games.

IME it is best to go with a simple INT check for the PC to see if they happen to know the correct information about something. For the examples you have above, it wouldn't necessarily be a high DC, 10 would probably do it.

This is where my harsh house rule comes in: I don't want to do the endless mini game of ask the DM. So no INT checks like that. There are fewer things a hate more then a player that goofs around for three hours during a game, then at the start of the forth hour is like "yuck yuck, can I roll to find out the name of the town my character has been in for the last week?...yuck yuck yuck".

 

[ezo]

This is where my harsh house rule comes in: I don't want to do the endless mini game of ask the DM. So no INT checks like that. There are fewer things a hate more then a player that goofs around for three hours during a game, then at the start of the forth hour is like "yuck yuck, can I roll to find out the name of the town my character has been in for the last week?...yuck yuck yuck".

That... isn't quite what I was talking about.

It is perfectly reasonable IMO for something like a troll's issue with fire, or lycanthropes and silvered weapons, to be "common" knowledge in a fantasy world. However, such knowledge should not be perfect or always just assumed. For example, silvered weapons with werewolves might be distorted in the telling to include holy water--"Don't you know you need a silvered weapon, dipped in holy water, and blessed by a priest!"--instead of just, "No, a silvered weapon alone would do it... I don't know where you got the rest of that from."

Not every PC will know the "truth" or facts when it comes to such things. Some might not know them at all, others have it incorrect, and other know the truth of it. That is what I am talking about and why a simple DC 10 Intelligence check suffices in most cases IME.

Without this, how do you know what "real world" knowledge a PC has in their own world. I mean, the characters live IN their world, they should know certain things, right??

Now, what you thought I meant is very annoying and frustrating, I agree. And I don't jive for that, either. If a player can't remember details, write them down, otherwise your PC is going to embarass themselves when the call the town "Merrydown" when it fact is was "Thusselton" or something.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

This is where my harsh house rule comes in: I don't want to do the endless mini game of ask the DM. So no INT checks like that. There are fewer things a hate more then a player that goofs around for three hours during a game, then at the start of the forth hour is like "yuck yuck, can I roll to find out the name of the town my character has been in for the last week?...yuck yuck yuck".

Should this be a house rule or just the removal of a player? To me, this seems like a player problem. If a player goofs around for hours and then tries to short cut things to catch up, I'd lean towards not wanting that player to play with me.

I bring this up a lot because any "rule" affects everyone. So someone may honestly forget something even if they took meticulous notes and paid full attention. And a rule intended for bad behavior, would punish that player as well.

A better solution, to me at least, would be to just correct the bad behavior.

 

[bloodtide]

Should this be a house rule or just the removal of a player? To me, this seems like a player problem. If a player goofs around for hours and then tries to short cut things to catch up, I'd lean towards not wanting that player to play with me.

True. Though sadly this is a lot of players.

I bring this up a lot because any "rule" affects everyone. So someone may honestly forget something even if they took meticulous notes and paid full attention. And a rule intended for bad behavior, would punish that player as well.

Sure people can forget things: but if they have notes, well not so much.

A better solution, to me at least, would be to just correct the bad behavior.

Sure, this would be great.

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

*Changing shape, conjurations and creation magic require a bit of (whatever) as a component. So, for example, you can not magicaly create anti mater, unless you have some anti matter to use as a component.

I'm an old-time rebel against harsh old-school-style rules, going back to the days when old-school was still new. But this... this is something I might actually adopt myself, at least for shapeshifting magic. Although I'd be inclined to make it a focus, instead of a component.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Typically....but not always. A great many people do not know a great amount of stuff.

So if people typically know things, yet you tell them nothing aren’t you seriously breaking immersion and realism in your games?

Well, using strength in an RPG is an action covers by the rules. So the players can just use the rules.

So is intelligence, wisdom, and charisma. But you seem to suggest those have to be role played and use rules. Just curious why that doesn’t also include strength, dexterity, and charisma

For fun.

Sure, but it seems you’re against that for some people. Like only your fun matters